Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
scopeguard-mcp

scopeguard-mcp

by Wsh7Ash
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

cvss_base

Computes the CVSS v3.1 base score and qualitative severity from a vector string, so you can rate vulnerability impact quickly and consistently during triage.

Instructions

Compute the CVSS v3.1 Base score and qualitative severity for a vector string such as CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "vector": "<vector>"
    },
    "name": "cvss_base"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
vectorYesFull CVSS:3.1 vector

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a reasonable job: 'Compute' signals a pure, side-effect-free calculation, and 'Base score and qualitative severity' declares the return values. The deliberate scoping to Base score is a meaningful behavioral boundary, though error behavior for a malformed vector is not mentioned.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One front-loaded sentence with the verb and output first and the example last; there is no filler and nothing that could be trimmed without losing information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter, read-only computation with no output schema, this is nearly complete: it says what is computed and what is returned. The only gaps are failure behavior on an invalid vector and the exact output shape of the severity band, both minor.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3. The description goes further by supplying a complete, syntactically valid example vector, which teaches the expected input format more effectively than the schema's 'Full CVSS:3.1 vector' line alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Compute) and a precisely scoped resource (CVSS v3.1 Base score plus qualitative severity). The explicit naming of v3.1 and 'Base' clearly separates it from any sibling concern such as check_target, redact, list_findings, or add_finding.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The need for a full CVSS:3.1 vector is implied, and the example makes the prerequisite concrete, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or note that temporal/environmental metrics are out of scope. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools